art vs. entertainment

  • Thread starter Thread starter brandon.w
  • Start date Start date
B

brandon.w

New member
I've been thinking about this a lot lately...and a certain post in another thread got me thinking maybe I should share some of my thoughts and get some input.

I hear a lot of people bitching about how music is shit these days...and I can't blame them. However, what they're complaining about is what's in the mainstream, and there has allways been shit like that in the mainstream of musicial entertainment. There is a lot of really great art being made that hardly anyone knows about...and why is that?

I think it's because people (in general) don't want art. It could be argued that all music is art...but is it? is Mandy Moore an artist? a performer perhaps...but what is the difference between an artist and a performer? I think an artist creates. creates something that will inspire, or envoke other emotions and connect with people on a basic human level through a not-so-basic medium. It's amazing to think most of the people winning awards and esteme for being such great artists hardly do anything. does coming into a studio with musicians who have written "your" song for you and nailing the vocals really artistry? I think not. even if these bubble-gum pop stars write their own lyrics, they're not musicians. even if some of them actually WRITE the music...it's simple and uninspiring. I believe TRUE art and TRUE music comes from true artists...the indie and underground geniuses that we give no notice to because they don't have big record deals and big producers, when in fact, THAT'S what makes them great.

True there have been artists that have cracked the mainstream that are truly talented, such as TOOL, The who, Led Zepplin, Radiohead, and The Doors just to name a few. But why aren't there more? I think it's because the records are being bought by 12 year old children (and those with the minds of 12 year olds) that want nothing more than something socially acceptable to obsess over and zone out to. therefore I don't think it's FAIR to call these people artists, nor do I think it's fair to call their medium of entertainment "music".
 
i could not possibly agree more... popular music is a product not an artform, and the art now is that of marketing..... the whole deal sucks like a cheap whore....
 
Um, were you not the same guy who said something like "ew, Radiohead" in the discussion that inspired this thread?

Anyway, I disagree. "Pop" is short for "Popular", and it's popular because a lot of people like it. What is it with so many musicians who naturally have this disdain for something just because a lot of other people like it?

My guess? Jealousy. Hey, we're all guilty of it. I can't tell you how many times I've heard Blink 182 on the radio and wanted to scream, "Why THEM??? There are about 50 TRILLION better musicians!!!!"

50 trillion meaning, of course, me. :) Because you hate to see somebody you don't respect, more successful than yourself. Listen to Morrissey's "We Hate It When Our Friends Become Successful".

Different people like different kinds of music, and I think it's very small minded to assume that somebody's tastes are inferior if they don't listen to progressive rock.

You can be a serious, and/or classically trained, and/or obsessive musician, and enjoy pop. I am all of these things. Although I would probably say that I don't enjoy most of what's on the charts right now, I find a hell of a lot more musical value in N'Sync and Mandy Moore than the shitty "me too" bands that crowd the dead and buried genre known as "modern rock". So what if they don't write their own songs? Again I say, NEITHER DID ELVIS PRESLEY. OR FRANK SINATRA. Don't you think that people wrote Elvis Presley, especially, off as a talentless teenybopper when he first broke into the charts?

Sure, plenty of good stuff doesn't get played. Pete Townshend's last album, Psychoderelict, was ignored. David Byrne's recent release was, too. Last I heard, his album had sold less than 20,000 copies. DAVID BYRNE! Something's wrong with that.

At the same time, to write something off simply because a lot of people are buying it smacks of jealousy. There are plenty of people, you know, who think that Tool is a load of crap, and that rock is dead. It's called a difference of opinion. You find a lot of that in life. Deal.
 
Andy Warhol prints of soupcans is art.....
Mona Lisa by DaVinci is art....
Micheal Angelo's David is art...
Norman Rockwell's covers for the Sat.Ev.Post is art..
And those paintings you see in Holiday Inns, thats art to some..
Hell some people like those velvet Elvis paintings!
Its in the eye/ear of the beholder..Think of Boyband/teen diva stuff like you would a innocuous little painting on the wall , they wont bug you so much!Thats how I stay relativly sane about the state of pop music...LOL

My 2cents


Don
 
All good points. However, there is a big piece of the puzzle that you guys haven't mentioned that explains a lot of why there is seemingly nothing but mindless drivel floating amongst the mainstream.

AOR

Try requesting Zep's "Bring it On Home" or Tool's "Third Eye" on the radio. The guy on the phone may promise to play it, but he won't.

Radio producers in every popular genre follow an arbitrary formula (generally called AOR which at its inception stood for "Album Oriented Radio") that tells them what songs will capture the most listeners at any given time of the day. And the record companies follow suit by pushing the producers of their signed artists to determine which songs off an act's next record should be considered for the radio. Case in point: Tool's Schism was played to death on the radio but now not so frequently so that room can be made for the next producer's choice (which I think for Tool is Parabola).

And it is this very thing that causes songs to be played on the radio until you want to vomit. Radio single-handedly ruined Metallica's Black Album, Pearl Jam's Ten, Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven", and Nirvana's "Teen Spirit". And this is just rock. Spend one hour in any office and you'll hear the entire pop music catalogue being pumped out of some data clerk's clock radio: all the Whitney Houston, Journey, and Margaritaville you will ever need to hear.

This is also why I completely stopped listening to commercial radio stations, which did wonders for my once bitchy attitude.

So despite the denial by many successful artists, the fan is telling the truth when a band becomes a "sellout". It's the point where the musicians lower their artistic integrity for the purpose of getting a greater fanbase. It's the point that separates art from product.
 
Eurythmic said:
"Pop" is short for "Popular", and it's popular because a lot of people like it.
Click to expand...

I used to think that, too, until I realized that most people I know can't stand the pop-bands that I love. I remember this because my brother asked me a few years ago what "pop" music was, and I had difficulty explaining (still would, so I won't try). A lot of popular music could be considered pop, but would you put that label on Enigma or Pavarotti?
 
Narrow playlists on radio&MTV...Payola ..You want drive time,TRL?They are all corps there is no art it is all commerce..When it changed so completely I dont know!Radio used to take pride in breaking a artistic band{U2,REM,E.Costello}, these days ? MTV style over substace..On the opening page of AOL there is a advert. for..The WB Popstars2 at 8 oclock see who will become the next stars!..Hummm is AOL part of Time/Warner..Sad days!If you think about it too much it will PISS you off!!


Don
 
Vurt said:


I used to think that, too, until I realized that most people I know can't stand the pop-bands that I love. I remember this because my brother asked me a few years ago what "pop" music was, and I had difficulty explaining (still would, so I won't try). A lot of popular music could be considered pop, but would you put that label on Enigma or Pavarotti?
Click to expand...

I'd call Enigma pop. Pavarotti, that might be a little more difficult...

But my definition of pop is pretty sweeping.

I always hate answering the question, "What kind of music do you play?" for that reason. It goes something like this...

"So, what kind of music do you play?"

"Uh, pop, I guess."

"Oh. Pop. Um, that's ... nice."

"Right."

"So who are some of your influences?"

"Oh, Duran Duran, Talking Heads, Pete Townshend..."

"Huh? I thought you said you liked pop music."
 
I did NOT say ew to radiohead! I said ew to the fact that you had Radiohead grouped with Nsync and Mandy Moore! I think you've obviously missed their point.
 
by the way, I DON'T dislike something for being popular, I LOVE Radiohead, TOOL, and The Strokes. I dislike most of what is popular because most of what is popular is bubblegum CRAP, like Nsync and Mandy Moore...it's not ART is a product, I had musical PRODUCTS. Learn to listen.
 
Eurythmic, I am NOT jelious at something that is popualr, like I said before, I LOVE bands like radiohead, I wish them all the luck and sucsess in the world. I don't have to say "why blink182??" I KNOW why...because boneheads who would rather zone out to pop and look at cute guys are the ones buying records...I don't get JELIOUS at brittney spears, I get SICKENED. and that quote "we hate it when our best friends become sucsessfull" I DO NOT think of these people as my best friends...or friends...or respectable...and there are LOTS of UNTALENTED musicians out there struggling...so your points are invalid, unfounded, and offensive. How can you call yourself an artist with that kind of mindset?
 
by the way...I don't have any artistic respect for Elvis...he was a performer. so HA ::sticks out tongue::

the rest of you have made good points, and I find your posts refreshing :) and the comment about everything being art...I disagree, I believe it's only art when it was made for the purpose of art and communication...not designed for profit.

(sorry for reposting so many times)
 
i dont see how we can actually argue this...

People have different tastes based on their current living situation, past experiences, how they were raised, and how they feel at the moment.

For instance, I HATE the Strokes. In my opinion they suck. Every time that song comes on I want to destroy the radio/tv.
Yet some people like them. Fine for them.

My favorite group is Orgy. I dont care if they dont use harmonious chord progression based on the chromatic 12 tone scale of music theory. They sound good! Thats all I care about. If you over-anylize music then youre missing the whole point.

As I said its all opinion.

Last summer(2000) I went with 4 total strangers from my highschool(I was a senior) and a teacher out for a trip in the South-West. We lived from hotel to hotel and had all our stuff in the back of a van. We went all over the southwest stopping everywhere for about 15 days(it seemed like forever). It was the single best experience of my life, one that I will never forget.
One time while we were driving into Pheonix there was a huge storm in the distance as the sun was setting and casting a red glow on the sequoia in the desert. One of the guys on the trip had bought a Fats Domino CD while we were in the Memphis Airport. He just bought it randomly just on impulse. None of us really liked that music, but we played it going into Pheonix. One song on there is called "Shu Rah". Its the dumbest little song, but for some reason we all started singing along to it and eventually played that cd all the way through probably 60 times.

I would never have liked that kind of music in any other situation, but under those conditions I loved it. And everytime I hear it Im remeinded of my time out there.

During that trip a girl nammed Anna also had a Dixie Chicks CD. Thats what she was into. I ended up actually liking that CD alot. Normally I hate country, but the CD kind of epitomized the trip for me. Music has a powerful effect on people.

To say that NSync sucks just because they're popular and are very corperate controlled is kind of narrow minded. You might not like the music, but the reason that they are so popular is because they connect with their demographic very well. Pre-teen girls love their music because it connects with them on a level that Radiohead can't. My 10 year old sister is very intelligent and not the typical preteen pop crazy girl, but she really likes the bsb and nsync. Thats what she can relate to. Thats what sounds good to her at this moment in here life.

I think that its impossible to judge music. You can judge it for yourself, but not for anyone else.
 
brandon.w said:
[BLearn to listen. [/B]
Click to expand...

You've obviously never read any of my essays.

Come back and say that again in QUITE a few more years. :)
 
WEBCYAN said:
During that trip a girl nammed Anna also had a Dixie Chicks CD. Thats what she was into. I ended up actually liking that CD alot. Normally I hate country, but the CD kind of epitomized the trip for me.
Click to expand...
Oh admit it... you just wanted to get into her pants and pretending to like the music she liked was your ticket in!!! ;)

:D :D

Bruce
 
One of my best friends is an educated visual artist, starting his career. He has a pretty well-formed idea of what art is, how to define it etc...

One of the things he said on this subject was:
'art is whatever the artist says it is. If the artist puts an apple on a chair, and says it is art, then it is.'

Now this brings another question: how can you define artist? Can anybody call himself an artist? ...

Another thing that this leads to is: what do the people that 'create' those pop-songs think of it? Do they think of those songs as works of art, or just as a product? Maybe they compose other, more serious works in their spare time?

Another thing to consider: when composing, how do you work? Do you just write melodies that stick, nice melodies, or do you do more than that? If you just write lines that stick, that people will like, you are doing the same...
Composing isn't about creating beautiness. Art isn't about creating beautiness. (If you want to dispute this last statement, read schoenberg's theory of harmony, he explains it alot better than I would...)
 
Eurythmic said:
What is it with so many musicians who naturally have this disdain for something just because a lot of other people like it?
Click to expand...

Because they are "MUSICIANS". It's like a cheerleader winning a high school science fair off of someone else's hard work. Sure, she's pretty but she didn't do shit. Resentment, not jealousy. I say lock some of these so-called "artists" in a studio all by their lonesome and see how talented they REALLy are.
 
This is so classic. I love the way musicians act sometimes.

Of course, hey. I was the same during my rock phase.

I'm not sure how admitting that different people have different tastes makes me any less of an artist, but I got a good laugh out of that.

I'm not sure how I could make this any more clear, but there is no absolute good and bad in art. There is only WHAT PLEASES YOU.

And don't even begin to attempt an inference at what pleases me, based on the names I've dropped. Trust me, you have no idea.

Do I consider N'Sync and Mandy Moore to be artists? YES. Why? BECAUSE LYRICAL INTERPRETATION IS AN ART. Do I put them on the same level as Radiohead? No.

Pete Townshend wrote songs. Roger Daltrey, John Entwistle, and Keith Moon interpreted them. Was there only one artist in the Who?

Put it a different way. My favorite modern concerto is the one for trumpet and orchestra by Alexander Arutiunian. I've not heard it performed by Mr. Arutiunian. In fact, I don't even know if the guy knew how to play the trumpet. Instead, every time I hear the piece performed, I'm hearing an interpretation. Every one is different, and I consider each performer to be an artist.

Don't worry. Once you make it through that wonderous time known as puberty, you'll broaden your horizons a bit. :cool:
 
Very true...

Consider it as art on a different level. Some of the atonal works of Schoenberg, Messiaen and the likes don't sound good to your ears either. Here it's pretty clear, they are very well respected musicians, with alot of appreciation on their name, so if you don't like it, then it's either not your thing, or more probably you just don't get it. You just don't get it because it's art on a very different level. (and here I would say higher. :D )

Well, consider those bands as art on a lower level. In their (the performers and composers) eyes, it might feel like art and expression. Just because someone with a higher education doesn't get touched by it cause he sees right through it, is thinking from a higher perspective, doesn't mean it's not art.

However, I still stay with my previous statement, if the composer made it as if it's a serial product, then the song is not art. In this case, the performer is still practicing art when believing in it while performing...
 
spam, cheeswhiz, marshmellow sandwich, and 12 ounces of Tab

**BUUUURRRRRP!!**

'scuse me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top